Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Elementary School Shooting in Newtown, Connecticut


Recommended Posts

CNN's Coverage of the Tragedy

 

Newtown, Connecticut (CNN) -- In one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history, a gunman opened fire Friday in a Connecticut elementary school, killing nearly 30 people -- most of them children, a law enforcement official receiving information from the scene told CNN.

 

At least 10 of the dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School were students, a different law enforcement source familiar with the investigation said. Among the dead were the school's principal and psychologist, according to a parent who was at the school when the incident happened.

 

The mother of the suspected gunman was also among the dead at the school, a senior law enforcement official familiar with the investigation told CNN, while the suspect's brother was found dead in a residential location in Hoboken, New Jersey.

"Why? Why?" one woman wailed as she walked up a wooded roadway leading from the school.

 

At a news conference Friday afternoon, state police Lt. Paul Vance declined to put a number on the deaths. He would say only that there had been "several fatalities." Police were waiting to notify families before releasing details, but he reassured nervous residents that the school was secure, the danger past.

 

Student: We heard lots of bangs 3rd grader describes shooting from class

The gunman is dead, his body in a classroom, a source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN. Police have recovered two weapons from the suspect, a Glock and a Sig Sauer, the source said. It's unclear if police killed the suspect.

Police were questioning another man but are not calling him a suspect, a source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN.

 

President Barack Obama addressed the shooting in an emotional statement Friday afternoon, saying, "Our hearts our broken today." Obama, a father to two girls, wiped away tears as he noted the nation has "endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years."

 

Despite the danger being past, federal officers in tactical gear were on the scene Friday afternoon, coordinating with state and local authorities. At least four ambulances remained at the school.

 

'I hope my mom is ok': Tweets from the Connecticut school shooting

Hospital officials in neighboring Danbury said they were treating three people wounded in the shooting. Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton said the victims were in "very serious" condition.

 

Police and teachers rushed students from the building as police swarmed the area shortly after the first calls came in, around 9:40 a.m. ET. Officials moved students to a nearby firehouse, where parents frantically sought information about their children.

Third-grader Alexis Wasik said police and teachers barged into her classroom and told students to hide in the corner.

"Everybody was crying," she said. "And I just heard the police officers yelling."

 

Aerial images from CNN affiliate News 12 New Jersey showed police officers armed with rifles following a dog into woods near the school.

 

Other officers, some in tactical gear, stood around the school with guns drawn, CNN affiliate WFSB reported.

'It doesn't seem possible' -- parents shocked by school shooting

All schools in the city were on lockdown Friday as police assessed the situation, Vance said.

Gov. Dan Malloy is "horrified" by what happened, a spokesman said. Malloy was meeting with families Friday afternoon, the spokesman said.

 

Obama ordered flags to half-staff nationwide in tribute to the victims.

If the number of fatalities holds up, the Newtown shooting would be the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, behind only the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech that left 32 people dead.

The 1999 Columbine High shooting in Littleton, Colorado, is the deadliest at a U.S. elementary, junior or high school. In that incident, two students shot 13 people to death before killing themselves.

 

My thoughts and prayers go out to those involved in this shooting....

Edited by SharkTums
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Bring on the Mayan Apocalypse, I have given up all hope for the human race. Give our planet to the cockroaches and phytoplankton. Both of which are better than the sick, disturbed, pathetic excuse for a lump of flesh that did what he did this morning.

 

This is simply outrageous, there's nothing you can even say. It's just the worst thing that could ever happen.

 

Something major has to happen in the US to change the whole system...Mental Health Screening, Guns, Politics, Schools, everything needs to be addressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Death toll at 28. So sad. I know that this is a roller coaster site, but I feel that roller coasters can take the back seat for today. Now it time to pray for the victims of this tragedy. May the victims R.I.P

Link to post
Share on other sites

death toll is actually 27, and one "good riddance" (the piece of garbage that committed this act should NOT be counted as one of the dead).

 

I'm having a hard time dealing with the fact this monster murdered 20 innocent Kindergarten kids.

 

as has been stated, this is a Roller Coaster/Theme Park site, and I've never gotten really serious here.

 

but writer Greg Rucka posted something on his blog that I feel is not only well written, but also EXTREMELY important.

 

please give it a read.

 

http://ruckawriter.tumblr.com/post/37927327450/our-hearts-our-broken-today

 

meanwhile, I'll continue to send prayers out to the families affected by this monster today

Link to post
Share on other sites

So upset on the incident that happen today... My Xmas lights will be turned off tonight and just the porch light will be on for 27 hours to remember in vigil of the 27 killed.... My family and I thoughts and prayers go out to the families effected and the state of Connecticut!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has made me sick to my stomach. It's so insanely terrible. I used to live near here! I stopped in this town on the way to NYC once! I wonder how many houses I passed that had children who went to this school. He needed help a long long time ago. He need deep psychiatric help very long ago. This could have been avoided. It's so monstrous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back in Connecticut for winter break. I did some shopping today, and there was a rather somber mood in all the stores I was in despite the cheery holiday music playing. It completely escapes me thinking of ANY possible way to justify gunning down children, except that gunman was fully aware that what he was doing was pure evil, and he was ok with that. This is just a terrible terrible story. A parent should never have to outlive their child.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bring on the Mayan Apocalypse, I have given up all hope for the human race. Give our planet to the cockroaches and phytoplankton. Both of which are better than the sick, disturbed, pathetic excuse for a lump of flesh that did what he did this morning.

 

This is simply outrageous, there's nothing you can even say. It's just the worst thing that could ever happen.

 

Something major has to happen in the US to change the whole system...Mental Health Screening, Guns, Politics, Schools, everything needs to be addressed.

 

I don't know what else to say Elissa, I really don't. I'm with you about losing faith in humanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but writer Greg Rucka posted something on his blog that I feel is not only well written, but also EXTREMELY important.

 

please give it a read.

 

http://ruckawriter.tumblr.com/post/37927327450/our-hearts-our-broken-today

 

Now, I'm bound to rustle some feathers by what I am about to say, but realize that I mean not to insult anyone, only to enlighten.

 

Is this a tragedy? Of course. Should we as a nation, as a species, mourn for this loss? Yes. But, we need to keep our heads level and not act until our heads have cleared. Gun control would not work in this case, in the draconian manner which I fear this guy is advocating for. Connecticut is already the fifth strictest state in the nation when it comes to gun control, behind New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California.

 

He already committed at least four felonies and three misdemeanors even if he didn't pull a trigger; two counts (technically) of criminal possession of a handgun (gotta be 21 to possess a handgun in CT, he was 20) three counts of criminal theft (though they're his parents' guns, his parents would definitely not have wanted to have let him have the guns for that purpose so I would count those as theft) as well as bringing guns onto a school ground, which is a class D felony in CT, on top of attempted mass murder of the first degree. (I'm not a lawyer, but this is my best guess.)

 

Criminals are called criminals for a reason. They don't follow laws. Enacting more laws in order to try to stop those who don't follow laws in the first place is obviously illogical and only makes the lives of those that do follow laws and are of good moral standing that much more frustrated because they can do that much less in life.

 

Now, would I be in support for trying to find a better way of psychologically evaluating these people and giving them proper treatment? Yes. But, the issue is that involving psychiatrists in applying for gun permits would make the process of getting a gun significantly more byzantine, because I highly doubt that psychiatrists can successfully make such a thorough and proper assessment of one's character in one short thirty minute session. (And you also have to make sure that the psychiatrists involved are able to control their bias enough so that they don't abuse their newly found power.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

but writer Greg Rucka posted something on his blog that I feel is not only well written, but also EXTREMELY important.

 

please give it a read.

 

http://ruckawriter.tumblr.com/post/37927327450/our-hearts-our-broken-today

 

Now, I'm bound to rustle some feathers by what I am about to say, but realize that I mean not to insult anyone, only to enlighten.

 

Is this a tragedy? Of course. Should we as a nation, as a species, mourn for this loss? Yes. But, we need to keep our heads level and not act until our heads have cleared. Gun control would not work in this case, in the draconian manner which I fear this guy is advocating for. Connecticut is already the fifth strictest state in the nation when it comes to gun control, behind New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California.

 

He already committed at least four felonies and three misdemeanors even if he didn't pull a trigger; two counts (technically) of criminal possession of a handgun (gotta be 21 to possess a handgun in CT, he was 20) three counts of criminal theft (though they're his parents' guns, his parents would definitely not have wanted to have let him have the guns for that purpose so I would count those as theft) as well as bringing guns onto a school ground, which is a class D felony in CT, on top of attempted mass murder of the first degree. (I'm not a lawyer, but this is my best guess.)

 

Criminals are called criminals for a reason. They don't follow laws. Enacting more laws in order to try to stop those who don't follow laws in the first place is obviously illogical and only makes the lives of those that do follow laws and are of good moral standing that much more frustrated because they can do that much less in life.

 

Now, would I be in support for trying to find a better way of psychologically evaluating these people and giving them proper treatment? Yes. But, the issue is that involving psychiatrists in applying for gun permits would make the process of getting a gun significantly more byzantine, because I highly doubt that psychiatrists can successfully make such a thorough and proper assessment of one's character in one short thirty minute session. (And you also have to make sure that the psychiatrists involved are able to control their bias enough so that they don't abuse their newly found power.)

 

 

100% agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^But you're missing the point of Gun 'Control'. I'm not one of those crazy people saying we need to ban all guns and take guns away from people but why did his mother have SEVERAL hand guns, a rifle, and more? If there was more CONTROL and limits he wouldn't have been able to do as much damage as he did.

 

This was not some street criminal getting guns from the street. He took what was readily available to him and that's the problem. We shouldn't have SOOOO many guns readily available to every mental case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Virginia recently overturned a "one-handgun-purchase-per-month" limit. The state enacted this law back in the 1990s because northeastern gangs were coming to Virginia and buying lots of handguns (or having surrogates make those purchases for them). I'm not a "gun control nut" either, but I think overturning this law was a very foolish move by our Republican-dominated legislature. Really, does your average person need to buy more than one gun per month? We already have more firearms per capita than any other nation in the world.

 

I'd love to see a return of the "assault weapon" ban, which expired during the George W. Bush administration. Even my Dad, who has been an NRA member for years, believes that no one needs an assault rifle and was always rather embarrassed by the NRA pushing them. (I think this has more to do with the weapons industry's profit margins than any "Second Amendment rights.")

 

I have a problem with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, too. If so, why make it easier for people to obtain firearms? This is particularly true for the rifle used in this horrible killing spree yesterday. It has no use other than mass slaughter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
^But you're missing the point of Gun 'Control'. I'm not one of those crazy people saying we need to ban all guns and take guns away from people but why did his mother have SEVERAL hand guns, a rifle, and more? If there was more CONTROL and limits he wouldn't have been able to do as much damage as he did.

 

This was not some street criminal getting guns from the street. He took what was readily available to him and that's the problem. We shouldn't have SOOOO many guns readily available to every mental case.

I agree with you 100%

 

I have heard a statistic (no idea where) that you are more likely to be killed by your own gun than have it save your life, and it is true in this case. There is no need for one person to own that many guns. I have had the same argument with my own family.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control doesn't matter. Criminals will still find ways to cause chaos. Yesterday in China, a man stabbed 22 children with a knife. I don't think anyone died, but still, gun control won't stop anyone from causing harm or destruction.

 

Remember 9/11? the Oklahoma City bombings? They required no guns, but things people used everyday. Nothing will stop murder, and gun control would only make things worse.

 

Here's what I put yesterday in the Rant thread:

I say there should not be a law limiting gun control. Imagine this: If you're a criminal and people were not allowed to own guns and you had one, would you just sit around and not target things you wanted even though they were unprotected? No. You'd probably use that gun to get it. Now imagine this, what if a rapist wanted to rape someone? Well, no protection equals easy targets which would lead to higher rape rates.

 

Ok, now how would a law requiring guns on all people like in Kennesaw, GA, affected the outcome of all these incidents? Well, 20 children wouldn't be dead since I'm sure someone with half a brain would not try to shoot up a school knowing that there is a probable chance that someone there could retaliate and strike him down before he could cause too much damage.

 

I'm pretty sure the thought process of someone looking for an easy rape target in an area that required half the women to own a gun would be like this: "Well, if 50% of women walking down the street had a gun on them, there's a 50% chance I could be looking down the barrel of a gun if I decided to go after them." Not good odds, and it would be smart not to attack.

 

I will say this: I am sorry for the families and am sadden by the loss of many bright futures. I just hope that the guy is burning in hell right now. Rest In Peace young ones, you're in a much safer place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gun control doesn't matter. Criminals will still find ways to cause chaos. Yesterday in China, a man stabbed 22 children with a knife. I don't think anyone died, but still, gun control won't stop anyone from causing harm or destruction.

 

Remember 9/11? the Oklahoma City bombings? They required no guns, but things people used everyday. Nothing will stop murder, and gun control would only make things worse.

 

Here's what I put yesterday in the Rant thread:

I say there should not be a law limiting gun control. Imagine this: If you're a criminal and people were not allowed to own guns and you had one, would you just sit around and not target things you wanted even though they were unprotected? No. You'd probably use that gun to get it. Now imagine this, what if a rapist wanted to rape someone? Well, no protection equals easy targets which would lead to higher rape rates.

 

Ok, now how would a law requiring guns on all people like in Kennesaw, GA, affected the outcome of all these incidents? Well, 20 children wouldn't be dead since I'm sure someone with half a brain would not try to shoot up a school knowing that there is a probable chance that someone there could retaliate and strike him down before he could cause too much damage.

 

I'm pretty sure the thought process of someone looking for an easy rape target in an area that required half the women to own a gun would be like this: "Well, if 50% of women walking down the street had a gun on them, there's a 50% chance I could be looking down the barrel of a gun if I decided to go after them." Not good odds, and it would be smart not to attack.

 

I will say this: I am sorry for the families and am sadden by the loss of many bright futures. I just hope that the guy is burning in hell right now. Rest In Peace young ones, you're in a much safer place.

 

There "should not be a law limiting gun control"? So, you favor "unlimited gun control"?

 

The comparisons to Oklahoma City and 9/11 are invalid, at best. Yes, the terrorists in these cases used "everyday" items, such as diesel, ammonium nitrate fertilizer, box cutters, and jet planes. But these were conspiracies involving groups of people that took a lot of trouble and planning to pull off. These incidents also led to the increased security at airports, restrictions on what people may take on flights, and limited access to ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Using your logic, none of these steps should've been taken (if "control" doesn't work). After all, none of these items or chemicals were meant to be used to harm people--why regulate them?

 

Yet a gun's only purpose is to inflict harm.

 

Yes, there are nutjobs who will always find ways to cause chaos. This doesn't mean that we should make it easier for them by easing up on something like gun control.

Edited by cfc
Link to post
Share on other sites

but writer Greg Rucka posted something on his blog that I feel is not only well written, but also EXTREMELY important.

 

please give it a read.

 

http://ruckawriter.tumblr.com/post/37927327450/our-hearts-our-broken-today

 

Now, I'm bound to rustle some feathers by what I am about to say, but realize that I mean not to insult anyone, only to enlighten.

 

Is this a tragedy? Of course. Should we as a nation, as a species, mourn for this loss? Yes. But, we need to keep our heads level and not act until our heads have cleared. Gun control would not work in this case, in the draconian manner which I fear this guy is advocating for. Connecticut is already the fifth strictest state in the nation when it comes to gun control, behind New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California.

 

He already committed at least four felonies and three misdemeanors even if he didn't pull a trigger; two counts (technically) of criminal possession of a handgun (gotta be 21 to possess a handgun in CT, he was 20) three counts of criminal theft (though they're his parents' guns, his parents would definitely not have wanted to have let him have the guns for that purpose so I would count those as theft) as well as bringing guns onto a school ground, which is a class D felony in CT, on top of attempted mass murder of the first degree. (I'm not a lawyer, but this is my best guess.)

 

Criminals are called criminals for a reason. They don't follow laws. Enacting more laws in order to try to stop those who don't follow laws in the first place is obviously illogical and only makes the lives of those that do follow laws and are of good moral standing that much more frustrated because they can do that much less in life.

 

Now, would I be in support for trying to find a better way of psychologically evaluating these people and giving them proper treatment? Yes. But, the issue is that involving psychiatrists in applying for gun permits would make the process of getting a gun significantly more byzantine, because I highly doubt that psychiatrists can successfully make such a thorough and proper assessment of one's character in one short thirty minute session. (And you also have to make sure that the psychiatrists involved are able to control their bias enough so that they don't abuse their newly found power.)

 

and in response, I point out that in China yesterday there was an attack on a school as well.

 

a madman attacked 22 students with a knife.

 

ZERO fatalities.

 

ZERO vs 27 dead (with over 100 rounds fired in under 2 minutes).

 

surely you see the difference here: Knife used because the perpetrator had no access to a gun.

 

would the Monster in Conn. have committed something heinous regardless of if he had a gun or not? Very likely. Would we be mourning 20 Kindergarten students today if he had no access to a gun. absolutely not.

 

Strict gun control needs to be addressed ASAP by our President and elected officials.

 

at the VERY LEAST a complete and total ban on anyone other than law enforcement/military have access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gun control doesn't matter. Criminals will still find ways to cause chaos. Yesterday in China, a man stabbed 22 children with a knife. I don't think anyone died, but still, gun control won't stop anyone from causing harm or destruction.

 

 

Absolutely gun control laws would have greatly limited the damage (as Elissa pointed out, why did he have access to 2 semi-automatic guns and a rifle?).

 

edit to add from CNN live blog on this tragedy:

[updated at 11:50 a.m. ET] The gunman had access to more guns than the three found at the elementary school, a law enforcement source told CNN's Susan Candiotti.

 

Police recovered three additional guns elsewhere. They are a .45-caliber Henry repeating rifle, a .22-caliber Marlin rifle, and a .30-caliber Enfield rifle, the source said.

 

yeah. . LESS gun control is what's needed. . right.

 

I absolutely hate to play the "age" card (really, I do, as I don't know you and for all I know, you are a very well read & respected young man who is wise well beyond his years). . .but really, you are 16.

 

As a man of 45, I've seen way, way too many of these tragedies.

 

This hits me even harder than 9/11 did -- and that hit me really hard as I have lots of family in New York, some just blocks from the trade center.

 

you as a youngster of 16, were only 5 when that happened.

 

this is horrifying beyond belief to me, and if I had it in my power, I would ban every gun (from everyone) if it had even the slightest chance of preventing something like this from happening ever again.

 

but I would be ok with just SOME legislation being put into place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^So you'd take away the right of law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves? You'd take away the right of quite a bit of people to put food on the table? Does anybody honestly think that criminals will follow gun laws if they're passed? There's a reason they're called criminals, they commit crimes and don't follow the law. Guns are the easiest thing in the country to purchase illegally, and criminals don't follow the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control doesn't work. It's been said over and over again: criminals will not follow the law, and they will get guns. The only way to fight fire is with fire. Guns are meant for protection, but criminals use them for personal gain. Now, take guns away, and you made the criminal's job a lot easier. Give someone a gun, and they could stop the violence before it gets to the same point that happened in Connecticut.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gun control doesn't work.

 

you keep saying this, but look around the world at the level of gun violence.

 

and then look at the gun control laws in the Countries that have little to no, gun violence.

 

 

then, make your argument again.

 

as to this:

 

Guns are meant for protection, but criminals use them for personal gain. Now, take guns away, and you made the criminal's job a lot easier. Give someone a gun, and they could stop the violence before it gets to the same point that happened in Connecticut.

 

it's a totally flawed argument:

 

1) the monster yesterday was not a "criminal" (neither was the shooter in the Mall, or the Aurora movie theater, or the one who shot Congresswoman Giffords).

 

none of them had any criminal history -- there was NOTHING in place that would prevent them from acquiring the guns they used for their rampages.

 

2) you really think the death toll wouldn't have been HIGHER if others had guns and fired back? There would be more dead people, not less.

 

Same argument that was made after the Aurora shooting, which has been "shot down" (pardon the language) by many experts who have said if more guns were in that theater, there would have been more victims.

 

3) guns are not meant for Protection. The entire, and sole purpose of a gun, is to shoot a bullet (and therefore cause harm to something/someone).

 

It's a weapon.

 

period.

Edited by bert425
Link to post
Share on other sites
^So you'd take away the right of law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves?

 

Yes.

 

that's what the police are for.

How often do police get to the crime scene before the innocent are dead?

 

Edit-This is getting nowhere. I'm just going to go back and talk about roller coasters on the main forum.

Edited by simaticable
Link to post
Share on other sites
^So you'd take away the right of law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves? You'd take away the right of quite a bit of people to put food on the table? Does anybody honestly think that criminals will follow gun laws if they're passed? There's a reason they're called criminals, they commit crimes and don't follow the law. Guns are the easiest thing in the country to purchase illegally, and criminals don't follow the law.

 

How many guns and what type do you need to protect yourself?

 

Again, no one is saying to GET RID OF ALL GUNS MELT THEM INTO CHAIRS!!!! We're saying to make it more difficult to get guns and to put a limit on how many guns/ammunition you can have.

 

This case (as well as Columbine and other mass shootings) was not some street criminal buying illegal guns, he wasn't smart enough to make some fertilizer bomb, he wasn't going to fly a plane into the building, he used what was READILY ACCESSIBLE IN LARGE AMOUNTS to him.

 

And I love all of you posting the article about the china stabbing that KILLED NO ONE!!! You're just proving our point!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/